“From Source to Tap: A Hearing to Examine Challenges and Opportunities for Safe, Reliable, and Affordable Drinking Water.”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
From its commitments, that means more projects will need to be paid for entirely by local governments, resulting in an impossible choice of increasing water bills or more deferred maintenance, which ultimately results in higher costs anyway due to emergency repairs.
Speaker 2
So I understand that the SRF isn't perfect and that there could be accusations of a relatively small number of issues with the EPA's ability to conduct proper oversight of these dollars. Let's keep in mind that reduced staffing levels at the EPA are not helping this situation. Fewer people are now responsible for overseeing more financial awards. So we should be coming together to reverse the downsizing of the EPA, which has heightened the risk that waste, fraud, and abuse will go undetected. Because, ultimately, with so much investment needed, we should all want every available federal dollar to find its way to projects that will improve systems and enable better compliance with the law.
Second, we should establish a clear set of criteria for the EPA to use when determining whether or not to set a national drinking water standard. Specifically, does a contaminant pose a public health threat, and is it affecting a significant number of people? Our current regulatory system just isn't working. I believe everyone here wants to protect people from unsafe water. But without giving EPA the ability to set timely, health-protective standards, we know some Americans will simply not have access to safe drinking water.
Finally, we all recognize that many households are struggling with affordability issues. Nearly 20,000,000 Americans lack access to affordable water. I have long supported utility assistance for low-income households for energy bills through LIHEAP. It is past time for us to authorize a similar permanent program for the water bills. Mister Chair, I wanna thank you again for holding this hearing.
I hope we're able to work together to build upon the AIJA and support safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water for all Americans. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much. Thanks for everybody being here. Thanks to our witness for being here, and thank you, Chairman Palmer, for this important hearing. And, Mister Hill, thanks for being here. My wife's grandmother's maiden name was Hill, and she's from Fill Campbell.
So you're probably related. Okay. Phil Campbell's just right outside of Russellville in Franklin County. So I was actually born in Florence. So thanks for we'll chat after this and can see how we're connected.
So, the Safe Drinking Water Act was first created in 1974, and Congress has amended it multiple times to modernize the federal framework for ensuring the tap water that reaches our homes is safe. Under this framework, the US Environmental Protection Agency has several roles, including helping finance improvements to local water infrastructure, establishing standards to limit contaminants in drinking water, and protecting sources of drinking water from threats. But EPA is not the only one involved in this process. States, local governments, drinking water utilities, and communities also play very important roles. There's no question that much of our water infrastructure is old.
It needs to be updated as we just saw up close with the blowout of the Potomac Interceptor sewage tunnel, which leaked millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into the Potomac River, the primary source of drinking water for the communities around our nation's capital. However, the best way to respond to these challenges is up for debate. The infrastructure investment and jobs act provided EPA $50,000,000,000 for water infrastructure programs, an unprecedented level of funding, and more than five times what congress appropriates to the entire EPA in an average year. These infrastructure and jobs act authorities expire at the end of the fiscal year, which provides congress the opportunity to consider what drinking water policies have been working and what may need to be changed. Federal taxpayer money is not and cannot be the only solution to the infrastructure challenges our country faces.
We need better policies and practices at the federal, state, and local levels so new infrastructure can be built and maintained, which also creates jobs and helps our communities thrive. We have an excellent panel of witnesses today, including a fellow Kentuckian, Lindsey Rector. Glad to have you here who is president and CEO of Northern Kentucky Water District, the third largest water district in our Commonwealth, which those who don't know, we say Northern Kentucky, it's suburban Cincinnati, and a very major if you hit a ball out of the Great America ballpark, Atlanta, Kentucky. People don't realize that. And so we have Nicole Murley, the PA inspector general, who has been conducting a lot of important oversight of how billions of taxpayer dollars are actually being used.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses and engaging in a productive dialogue on these issues impacting the safety, reliability, and affordability of our nation's drinking water systems. I know you got the mentioned field count. I guess you're from Russellville. So golden tiger? You were a Golden Tiger?
I was at Bradshaw. Was a Bruin. So, thanks for, we all had many contests. Believe it or not, I was a football player. So many contests.
So thanks for being here. And I know Phil Campbell where my wife's family was generationally from way back, not my wife, had the tornadoes a few years ago. So I know you guys all responded and done well. So thanks to everybody. Thanks to Kentuckians, to Alabama, and all of you being here today.
Thanks. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen Yields, the chair now recognized as the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, mister Taco, for five minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 3
Oh, thank you. So today, we'll examine the state of our nation's drinking water infrastructure and the federal role in ensuring communities have safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water. For far too long, our aging water infrastructure has been underfunded. In 2025, the American Society of Civil Engineers report card gave the US water infrastructure system a C grade and, well, actually, it was a C minus. While the bipartisan infrastructure law provided historic investments to address our infrastructure challenges, that funding was just a down payment on the $625,000,000,000 needed over the next 20 years.
And this number will continue to rise if investments fail to keep pace with our infrastructure needs. Communities across the nation live with the consequences of this underinvestment. From legacy led service lines in my home state of New Jersey to the sewage pipe break right here in Washington, DC. Every sector depends on the delivery of safe, reliable water. But, unfortunately, the pipes underground are often forgotten until something bad happens.
It's, you know, essentially out of sight, out of mind. But without water, life comes to a halt. We can't afford to continue this piecemeal approach to addressing problems with our water infrastructure. And that's why reauthorizing and increasing funding levels for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, or SRF, is critical. The SRF is our main federal funding source for drinking water projects and helps water systems pay for capital improvements, instant investment in public health, and the economy.
Much of our infrastructure is from a bygone era. If we're serious about ensuring safe and reliable water for Americans, we must rebuild it to meet the 21st century challenges. We need water systems that are prepared for and can adapt to our changing climate and increasing cyber threats. We need to consider ways to promote energy efficiency and conserve water, a significant amount of which we're losing to broken pipes and water mains. We must remove all lead service lines once and for all.
Without adequate resources, the water sector will be unable to reliably deliver safe, affordable drinking water, leaving communities vulnerable to contaminants and disruptions in water service altogether. While the SRF is a cornerstone of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the committee should also examine ways to modernize the law to meet the challenges of today. The EPA has struggled to set and update drinking water standards that reflect the best available science. We saw some progress under the Biden administration with the historic PFAS standards and the improved lead and copper rule. But, regrettably, the chemical industry and water utilities have filed lawsuits challenging these health-protective standards, citing the cost of compliance.
And this puts these important protections in jeopardy. I agree that the affordability of water is a real pressing issue that affects the lives of Americans. However, I do not believe we need to choose between affordable water and safe water. We can have and must have both. And that's why I have advocated for a permanent water assistance program in the EPA in addition to funding technical assistance and strong health protective drinking water standards.
A permanent program will ensure that all Americans have access to safe, reliable water, and help utilities maintain access to water services. And water should be a basic right. It is a basic right and essential to the health and prosperity of our country. Unfortunately, this is not a reality for many communities. So I hope that we can find ways on a bipartisan basis to support the water sector and invest in the future of the Americans.
You have to seize the opportunity to deliver for the American people, and their health and safety depend on it. So I just want to mention in the minute I have left, mister chairman. You know, we have the community projects and the appropriations bills every year. And every year, my towns, because so many of them have these lead pipes that they can't afford to fix or remove, we, you know, use a lot of our those community funding projects and the appropriations bill to provide money to towns for, you know, lead pipe removal and water projects. And I'm glad we still have that as an option, but we really need to have a more permanent way to provide money to the towns because they really need help, you know, providing safe drinking water.
So with that, Mister Chairman, I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
That now, we conclude with the member opening statements, including that of the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, mister Palong. The chair would like to remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. The witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement, followed by a round of questions from the members. Our witness witnesses for today are Nicole Murley, acting inspector general, Environmental Protection Agency, Eric D. Olson, senior strategic director for health and food, natural resources, defense counsel Eric Hill, general manager Russellville, Alabama Water and Sewer Board, and Lindsey Recton, president and CEO, Northern Kentucky Water District.
We appreciate you being here today. I now recognize Miss Merlee for five minutes to give an opening statement.
Speaker 5
Good morning, Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Palmer, ranking members Palone and Clark, and members of the subcommittee. I'm Nicole Merlee, the deputy inspector general performing the duties of the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My testimony will draw from our extensive body of oversight work that collectively examines how the EPA is ensuring safe drinking water and managing an unprecedented influx of water infrastructure funding in recent years, as well as what our oversight has shown about progress made and the work still to be done. America's drinking water infrastructure delivers one of our most basic necessities.
And when those trusted systems falter, the consequences can.
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you. System failures in Jackson, Mississippi, and lead contamination in Flint and Benton Harbor, Michigan, are a few examples that serve as stark reminders that federal oversight is essential. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA is ultimately responsible for ensuring that public drinking water systems provide safe water. The agency sets national drinking standards, oversees state programs, and takes enforcement action if systems fall out of compliance.
The EPA also administers and oversees federal drinking water funding, primarily through the state revolving fund programs. States use SRFs to provide loans and additional assistance such as principal forgiveness and grants for disadvantaged communities for eligible projects, with repayments replenishing the funds in perpetuity and states retaining flexibility under EPA oversight. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included over $30,000,000,000 for the Drinking Water SRF program. As we have previously testified before this committee, the IIJA's historic investment in water infrastructure created both opportunity and risk, providing critical resources to address long-standing challenges while simultaneously heightening risks and the need for vigilant oversight from both the OIG and the EPA to ensure proper program implementation, mitigate risks, and safeguard taxpayer dollars. The EPA has implemented OIG recommendations for improvements and taken additional steps to enhance its implementation of safe drinking water programs.
For example, using IIJA funds, the EPA expanded technical assistance programs to help communities, especially those with limited capacity, to identify drinking water challenges, develop well-scoped projects, and apply for SRF or other infrastructure funding. The EPA has also strengthened guidance for compliance with Build America, Buy America domestic preference requirements. After we alerted the agency to key cybersecurity vulnerabilities at large drinking water facilities,
Speaker 5
The agency has published new and updated planning tools that water systems can use to help prevent and respond to cybersecurity incidents, and announced grant funding for water systems to make improvements. Additionally, after we highlighted a concern that grantees and subrecipients may not be fully aware of key fraud prevention and enforcement measures, the agency strengthened its grant terms and conditions for grants. The stronger grant terms have already led to actionable referrals of serious allegations to our Office of Investigations. But even with these steps forward, continued attention remains necessary to sustain and build on these improvements. The OIG has long provided targeted oversight of the EPA's SRFs, not only because they are the agency's largest funding vehicle, but also because they carry elevated risks.
Throughout the years of oversight, the office of inspector general work has highlighted conditions that increase the risk of fraud and mismanagement. Weak internal controls, incomplete documentation, inadequate financial reporting, and the absence of clear whistleblower and fraud reporting requirements, instructions, and training at state and local levels reduce transparency and make it harder for the EPA and the OIG to identify red flags early. The OIG warned that such gaps as missing audit financial statements, insufficient tracking of improper or unknown payments, and poor data quality and program reporting can obscure accurate assessments of the health of drinking water programs or even potential fraud schemes. Ultimately, the OIG has found that EPA's ability to deliver drinking water infrastructure outcomes hinges on consistent oversight, reliable data, and clear guidance. My written testimony expands on the challenges we have identified in each of these three key areas.
In closing, the OIG strives.
Speaker 5
Provide targeted, effective oversight that helps the agency safeguard both the nation's drinking water and the taxpayer investments in improving water infrastructure. By identifying risks, driving corrective actions, and strengthening agency performance, we aim to help ensure that historic investments through the SRFs and the IIJA deliver real results for the American public. Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your questions today.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, Chairman Palmer. Thank you, ranking member Tonko. We appreciate the opportunity to testify. I'm Eric Olson. I'm senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
And I wanted to highlight that the bipartisan infrastructure law, which has been mentioned a few times already, was drafted as it's called as a bipartisan measure. Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle were active participants in the investment of over $30,000,000,000 in water infrastructure for drinking water, and that was a badly needed investment. But I will say that we have just an enormous buildup of needs right now. It's been mentioned, EPA estimates $625,000,000,000 in drinking water needs. The industry is estimating between $1,000,000,000,000 and $1,600,000,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure as needed.
So we clearly need major investments in this area. We know that, since President Ford signed the Safe Drinking Water Act back in 1974, we've made significant progress, but we still have major challenges. Lead remains a significant issue. The forever-toxic chemicals called PFAS remain a significant issue. Perchlorate and many other contaminants are widespread and need to be addressed.
So what we need to move towards, we believe, is not these one by one chemical controls, but a broad spectrum approach moving towards technologies that will remove a wider array of chemicals rather than what I sometimes call the contaminant of the month club. We have a different contaminant every year, few years. Why not approach this as a broad-spectrum solution? That's the direction we think we should go in. And I will say there has been some progress also. The administration, this administration, announced that they are supporting the lead and copper rule that was adopted by the Biden administration.
That's progress. We are, however, concerned that the administration has asked to repeal the forever toxic chemical standards that were adopted by the previous administration and also to delay others. We think that's an unscientific and unlawful action by the administration. But I will say that these bipartisan investments are important. However, they represent less than 5% of the total investments that are being made nationally.
Federal investments, less than 5% of the total investments that are being made, and less than 1% of the needs. So we're talking about a need for very significant increases in investment in this area. And the public is really concerned about this. It's consistently, according to Gallup tracking polls every year, the number one public concern. In fact, 80% of the public is concerned about their drinking water, and we're starting to see that illustrated by a switch to bottled water.
In fact, over $50,000,000,000 is spent by the public every year on bottled water. That money could be better spent, we believe, on fixing our water infrastructure rather than on purchasing bottled water. We also think that there's a real risk here of moving towards a two-tiered drinking water system where large systems have higher quality water and small systems that are struggling have lower quality water. One of the issues that several members have already spoken to is the affordability issue. It's important that we move towards a water affordability or a low-income household assistance program, and also move towards better rate structures that help low-income people.
We don't need to be trading off bad quality water and providing substandard water in order to make water more affordable. Let's assist systems and assist low-income households. In our testimony, we have many recommendations for legislation, including reauthorizing, of course, the state revolving fund. We're recommending an increase to about 1% of the total needs, $10,000,000,000 a year. Lead service line replacement funding is important.
The PFAS funding is important. Money for lead in schools and daycare centers. Addressing the low-income household affordability program is crucial, as is the polluter pays program, where the polluters would pay to clean up water supplies rather than customers. We have more recommendations in our written testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Chair now recognizes gentleman, Mister Hill, for five minutes for his testimony.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Eric Hill. I am the general manager of the Russellville Water and Sewer Board in Russellville, Alabama.
I'm here on behalf of the National Rural Water Association and the Alabama Rural Water Association. I wanna start by telling you who I am, because it is the best way to explain why I'm here. In 1993, I started as a water and wastewater operator for a small rural system serving just over 2,000 customers. I learned on the job, earning my certifications, and worked my way to the position that I hold today. I'm not a policy analyst.
I test the water, I manage the treatment, and I sign the compliance reports. Today, I manage a drinking water plant, a well source, a wastewater treatment facility, and everything that connects them, with 26 employees. These employees handle treatment, distribution, collection, maintenance, compliance, billing, customer service, and emergency response. There's no in-house engineer, no compliance officer, and no attorney on staff. When a water main breaks at 2AM, the same people who read your meter that morning are the ones responding.
Chairman Palmer, I'm honored to testify before a fellow Alabamian who understands the communities I serve. I want to tell this committee what federal infrastructure investments look like when it reach a small town, because this is a story that I am living right now. 91% of the nation's roughly 50,000 community water systems serve populations of 10,000 or fewer. These systems face the same federal mandates as the largest utilities in the country, with a fraction of the staff, budget, and technical capacity. Let me tell you what federal investments look like on the ground.
The state revolving fund is one of the most effective tools Congress has created for public water infrastructure. Right now, I'm managing approximately $2,000,000 in SRL projects through Alabama's Department of Environmental Management, $1,000,000 in drinking water SRL, and $1,000,000 in clean water SRL. With those funds, we replaced a 25 year old telemetry system with a modern SCADA system, including firewalls, VPN access, and multifactor authentication. We repaired a water main that is separating from a creek bed. We cleaned two filter waste ponds essential to our treatment capacity.
And next month, we will open bids on a booster station pump upgrade that currently pumps 50% of the water we sell, an upgrade that will also allow us to meet a new state regulation requiring a 5 year tank washout. This is what $1,000,000 in SRL funding buys for a small community: a comprehensive program of repairs and upgrades that improves public health, reliability, cybersecurity, and compliance all at once. Without those favorable long-term terms, most of those projects would still be sitting on a wish list. But I have to be honest with this committee. The process of accessing those funds is harder than it should be.
Application complexity, Davis Bacon, and BABA compliance cost, and scoring systems favoring scale create real barriers for systems like ours. I urge the committee to adopt flexible principal forgiveness, extend project time frames, simplify reporting, and provide targeted waivers for small projects. My own career path illustrates another challenge. Up to half the water workforce will leave the industry within the next 10 years. I was fortunate to learn on the job, earn my certifications, and build a career without leaving home.
NRWA's registered apprenticeship program is now replicating that pathway in 35 states, with over 1,200 apprentices enrolled or graduated so far. That program needs continued federal support. And the on-site technical assistance that NRWA and ARWA provide is the most cost-effective investment for small system operation and compliance. Last year, the town of Hodges, Alabama, population roughly 2,400, suddenly lost its certified operator when he was seriously injured in a car accident. Overnight, no one knew how to run the water system.
Within one hour of being contacted, an ARWA specialist was on-site. We coordinated with the state and connected the system with a temporary operator record, and assisted the system until permanent coverage was arranged. The community never lost service and never violated its permit. That only happened because a trusted local provider was already in place. Two more things, briefly.
On PFAS, water systems are passive receivers. Passive receivers of contamination, not polluters. The entire water sector supports HR 1267, and I urge this committee to pass it. On the regulatory landscape, I support the Safe Drinking Water Act and every public health protection it requires. I simply ask that when new rules are implemented, the one-size-fits-all approach is neither affordable nor feasible.
The tools this committee has created are working in rural American communities just like mine. I am here to tell you where they can work better, and ask for your continued partnership. Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Speaker 9
Chairman Palmer, ranking member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Lindsey Recton, and I am the president and chief executive officer of the Northern Kentucky Water District. NKWD serves nearly 300,000 people across five Northern Kentucky counties. We operate three water treatment plants drawing from the Ohio and Licking Rivers, and maintain over 1,300 miles of water main. I am here today on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, or AMWA, where I serve on the board of directors.
AMWA is an organization that represents large, publicly owned drinking water utilities across the country. The importance and vulnerability of our nation's water infrastructure is on full display just a few miles from this hearing room, at the site of the Potomac interceptor collapse along the Potomac River. It demonstrates the real-world impact on the environment, public health, and the economy when a critical piece of water infrastructure unexpectedly fails. This infrastructure failure illustrates the ongoing criticality of strong and sustained investments in our water and wastewater infrastructure, which are often combined systems. At NKWD, our distribution system requires continuous investment to replace aging mains and to extend service to communities lacking public water access.
Federal assistance programs like the Drinking Water SRF have been essential tools for financing these projects while keeping water rates affordable. As this subcommittee examines the state of the nation's drinking water systems, I want to highlight three key points that I hope you will take away from my testimony. First, federal investments in water infrastructure generate meaningful returns throughout the economy. Second, Congress must act this year to reauthorize several critical financing programs that help communities update and replace infrastructure before it fails, while keeping water rates affordable for their customers. And third, Congress has opportunities to strengthen the nation's water systems by taking action to hold polluters accountable for the damage they cause, by helping communities become more cybersecure, and by ensuring EPA remains committed to sound, science-based regulatory development.
On my first point, my testimony highlights well-documented data showing that more than $625,000,000,000 of investment is needed over the coming decades just to maintain drinking water systems at their current levels of service. While this is a massive expense, we must also recognize that federal investments in water infrastructure generate positive ripple effects that are felt throughout the economy. According to a landmark report produced last year by the Value of Water campaign, every $1,000,000 invested in water infrastructure generates $2,500,000 in economic output and $1,400,000 worth of GDP growth. Alternatively, failing water infrastructure not only threatens public health, but it also interrupts economic activity and leads to severe losses for America's businesses. Nationwide, a single day without water service across the country would cost the US economy nearly $120,000,000,000, 527,000 jobs, and $69,000,000,000 in GDP.
And these economic interruptions happen at a smaller scale across the country on a daily basis, whether through routine water main breaks or more dramatic incidents like the Potomac Interceptor collapse. To stay ahead of these challenges, Congress must reauthorize EPA's core water and wastewater infrastructure financing assistance programs before they expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The benefits of these programs are real. Over the past two decades, NKWD has utilized 17 drinking water SRF loans totaling over $110,000,000 to finance infrastructure improvements across our system. Federal funding has allowed us to moderate our necessary rate increases, so we can avoid rate shock for our community while ensuring we continue to invest in our system.
Finally, my testimony includes several other policy recommendations to pursue in the interest of helping our nation's water systems confront the challenges they face. These include, first, holding PFAS polluters accountable for cleaning up the damage they cause to the environment, and protecting passive receivers like water and wastewater systems from footing the bill for remediating waste sites. Second, expanding water affordability assistance. When federal mandates impose new compliance costs, ratepayers bear them. A permanent low income water assistance program would help ensure vulnerable households maintain access to essential services.
And third, supporting existing sector resources like the Water ISAC, the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center, to help local water systems identify and close physical and cybersecurity gaps, implement best practices to withstand hostile threats, and generally maintain strong situational awareness of the threat landscape. These and other policy recommendations are described in more detail in my written statement. Thank you for the opportunity and the honor to testify today, and for convening this important hearing highlighting the nation's drinking water. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you all for your testimony. We will now move into the question and answer portion of the hearing. I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mister Hill, I appreciate you coming here from Russellville. As you know, I grew up in Hackleburg.
My father's and his family grew up in Hodges. I'm well aware of the challenges. You pointed out that the small rural systems make up roughly 91% of the community drinking water systems in Alabama. From your experience, and please be as brief as you can, what specific aspects of the state revolving fund application reporting process create the greatest challenges? And how important is it to have technical assistance to help, in terms of supporting rural water systems?
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The biggest problem is when systems like us, we applied in 2022, and we're just now getting some of those funds. Our primacy agency did the best job they could do, but they were overwhelmed with the amount of applications. It was a rating scale. It depended on how many people you represented.
And if you're a disadvantaged community, you could be raised to a higher priority on the list. And by the time those funds got out, there were engineering shortages. There were contractor shortages. And now we'll have a bid opening. Used have eight or 10 contractors there.
You're lucky to get one or two contractors. So the prices have been driven up substantially due to that delay in getting those funds out. But we were blessed to get those funds. The biggest drawback is a timely manner, that, hey. They have got them delivered to the communities in need.
Speaker 1
That would be particularly important if you discovered some issues with your wastewater treatment system if you needed funding to immediately address those issues. There's one of the other things that concerns me about rural water is vulnerability to cyberattacks. And, I'm concerned about this in terms of how we're going to address that because, again, most of the attention is given to the larger water systems. On the issue of cybersecurity risk, do you think the Build America, Buy America requirements are an appropriate mechanism to ensure the critical components are sourced from American companies and not from adversaries like China? That that's part of my concern is them embedding the ability to interfere with their water systems.
Is that a concern for the rural systems?
Speaker 8
It was a big concern for us. We had a telemetry system, which could be intercepted, and it was a proprietary system. So we reached out with our TA providers from Alabama Role Water Association, and we got on the same page with them. And we bid the project out with SRL funds, and we switched over with those SRL funds and installed a skader with a redundant sailor. It has the VPN.
It is encrypted. It is BIBA compliant, and that was our biggest concern with something like that. But there are material concerns for projects with fittings and those things that don't concern us as much as the, I guess, the cybersecurity side was the most concerning part.
Speaker 1
There's also data issues related to oversight, Miss Murley. And does the EPA data system interface with state data systems? And reading your testimony, you commented on it in your testimony about the problems with antiquated data systems. I guess that's the best way to put it for oversight of the funds.
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question, chairman. My testimony, in our work, highlights problems with data across. It's not an isolated data. I think there's issues with the way the agency stores and maintains data and also getting data from the states, the cities, the subrecipients.
Speaker 1
But if you're requiring the states to conduct the oversight and maintain the records, there has to be some ability between the federal government and the states in order to exercise adequate oversight. Otherwise, we're gonna have another Minnesota situation.
Speaker 5
Yes. That's correct. And we can get the data. It's just not as, a lot of the data is held in not easily readable formats. If you look to our management implication report that talked about the different ways the states store the electronic data, it varies across the states.
There's no systematic way that they carry it. We found that six states get construction bids in paper format. I'm not sure if that's been fixed in the two years since we've done that report, but that makes it harder for us to conduct oversight and to obtain those records.
Speaker 1
Well, there's a couple of things that I think we need to address. One, the EPA memorandum contradicts federal law and unclear guidance from the EPA. I think that's something we need to address, but also the workforce issues related to the water systems that half of them are gonna leave in 10 years. So that's an issue I think we need to take a look at. The chair now recognizes ranking member Mister Tonko for five minutes for his question.
Speaker 2
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. Again, I truly believe we all have similar goals, and that is to support the delivery of safe, affordable water. I'm very worried about this impending funding cliff at the end of this year, with the expiration of the IIJA supplemental funding. We're at serious risk of going back to a time when fewer water systems are able to access funding to carry out long-overdue projects. So, mister Hill, can you talk about the importance of these higher funding levels and what it has meant for your system in rural communities like yours?
Speaker 8
It has made a substantial impact on us. As you're aware of the IJA, those funds have to be expended by December 2026, and that is a burden, especially when those funds are just now getting rolled out. And you have some situations where the contractors have not been paid for jobs. They're completed. It's been great fun.
We just need to work on it. And maybe if we get some more funding in the future, we'll learn a lot from the way those funds were applied and distributed throughout each state.
Speaker 2
Right. That's why I think the human infrastructure is incredibly important to get those dollars out the door. Miss Reckon, similarly, from your community and Amwas perspective, what have those higher funding levels allowed you to do that may not have happened otherwise?
Speaker 9
Thank you for your question. Yes. They've been extremely critical for our utility. As I mentioned in my testimony, the Northern Kentucky Water District has been able to benefit from 17 different loans over the past twenty years totaling $110,000,000 in investment. And, otherwise, we would have either deferred those projects or had to have built those into our rate base.
So they're very important to provide stability and predictability, especially when we're coordinating with our cities about projects that we may need to coordinate. Understanding that those funds are available is very important.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And, Olson, at the end of the day, the Safe Drinking Water Act is a public health law. Can you tell us why those extra infrastructure dollars are so important for protecting people from unsafe water, including exposure to PFAS, lead, and many other dangerous contaminants?
Speaker 7
Yes. Thank you for the question. It's certainly true that what we've seen repeatedly is that the federal funding is absolutely critical, funneled through the states, through the state revolving fund generally, to address problems. Mister Polon recently spoke about the lead service line money. There's also just an ongoing need to really address forever chemicals, not far from your district in Housik Falls, for example.
There are many locations across the country. We've actually published a map, it's cited in our testimony, showing basically, virtually every congressional district has both serious lead contamination issues, and most of them also have PFAS contamination issues. This is a problem of public health that affects virtually the entire country, and there's an urgent need to continue these major investments.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And, mister Olson, again, if we're going to consider reauthorizing the drinking water SRF and other water infrastructure programs, what are the risks we would be taking in terms of subjecting Americans to potentially unsafe or unaffordable water if Congress does not renew its commitment to these previously enacted historic investment levels?
Speaker 7
Well, it's important, and I will say the funding cliff that you mentioned is a very real risk. What we are worried about is, for example, between the PFAS and the lead rules alone, there are literally thousands of lives at stake according to EPA's analyses. That if you don't have those rules in place, if you don't have the funding to actually make those rules alive and working, you could lose thousands of lives, some of them very young children, some of them adults from cardiovascular disease, from lead, for example. So these are very real risks that we need to address. And as we saw in Flint, as we've seen in many other locations, if you don't address these problems now, they get worse.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And inspector general Murphy, I mentioned in my opening statement that no one, with SF dollars, the dollars for SRF, no one wants them to be wasted. But do you agree that EPA's staffing reductions could make it more difficult to properly manage and conduct oversight of these awards?
Speaker 5
So we don't have, we haven't done work on the staffing levels, currently. I will say that staffing levels, grants management, and workforce planning have continually been an area that we address in our work. We just recently issued a grants workforce planning audit. We can share that with you. That recommends that the agency plan for workforce and the grants oversight. And in that we talk about that they need to address the changes, the staffing changes, and the organization changes at the agency.
Human capital and workforce planning is something that we look at in every project that we do. It's part of an ongoing oversight area for us. And I'll note that, in this year's top management challenges, we note that a challenge for the agency is to be managing the change at the agency with the workforce and the changes in the organization. So that is something that we will be looking at.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Well, I think it's important to say it's the reason that the infrastructure, the human infrastructure, is essential if we're gonna get these dollars out the door. And knowing from my county days and government, the commitment from the
Speaker 11
Gentlemen Yields, the chair now recognized as the chair of the full committee. Representative Guthrie from Kentucky for five minutes of questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thanks for the recognition. And, Miss Reckon, do you have all three your district is all three counties in Northern Kentucky?
Speaker 9
We actually serve just Kenton and Campbell County. We do an emergency supply agreement with our neighboring Boone County.
Speaker 4
People in Northern Kentucky. Right? They do. But we have a major system. You have a major system.
Yeah. We serve a lot of people. So from your experience in operating in Kentucky, where do you see opportunities to reduce duplicative or conflicting demands under the Safe Drinking Water Act? And, also, based on your experience, how well do federal drinking water investments support long-term system reliability rather than just short-term compliance?
Speaker 9
Absolutely. Thank you for your question. I would say just, you know, over the past two decades, having been able to benefit from 17 loans totaling $110,000,000, as my testimony mentions, you can show that that has had systemic benefits across our system. And looking forward, we do an asset management plan, along with our strategic plan, and we can understand what is happening. As you know, in Northern Kentucky, serving multiple counties, multiple cities, they have all of their own projects that they'd like to do.
So coordinating paving projects with them or any other city work helps us to be more efficient, so we're not, you know, digging.
Speaker 4
What kind of duplicative that you get from us that you would, I know you'd have to deal with Frankfurt, but also, what's duplicative here that you think is a problem?
Speaker 4
Okay. Well, thanks. And so, mister Hill, so I'm in Russellville still, what, about 10 or 15,000 people?
Speaker 8
Yes. I am a field camel bobcat graduate, and my children graduated from Russellville.
Speaker 4
So you have a smaller municipal, so as EPA implements new PFAS monitoring and treatment requirements under Safe Drinking Water Act, how prepared are small and rural systems to manage these requirements and absorb the associated cost for testing, treatment, upgrades, and ongoing compliance? And the reason I say this, I have Bowling Green, which should be similar to the district, Miss Recton. You operate. And then I've got smaller systems, which we sell. I know Russell, you're Russ, we have a Russellville as well.
But I know you're in Russellville, so I know that too. And I'm hearing from a lot of my smaller ones just the requirements for PFAS. Although we won't clean the drinking water. We all absolutely want it to be safe. But sometimes the standard goes so far.
It makes it too expensive to, I mean, people, you gotta pay for these changes. And so how is PFAS and experiencing in your area?
Speaker 8
So we have to test for PFAS just like everyone else. We're treated the same as a large utility. And we do wanna comply with the safe drinking water act. We won't PFOS remove, but the financial burden that it will pass along to these systems is detrimental. And taking it out of the water is only half of the problem.
Once you get it out, the problem is getting rid of that source. There's hopefully some destruction techniques that will come out soon that will benefit that. But these small systems cannot afford to remove PFOS. The large systems. It is expensive for the large systems as well, but it's a financial burden that we pass along to
Speaker 4
The company. Spread it out fewer number of clients. You know, the bigger you are, the more you can absorb the overhead.
Speaker 4
Yes. Anything. So, Miss Rick, in your testimony, you state this, that this drinking water revolving loan fund helps water utilities plan for long-term investments and maintain affordability. Can you explain more about how the affordability challenges your rate payers face? Absolutely.
Affordability of the system?
Speaker 9
Yes. So as I mentioned, we do plan projects, you know, 20 years in advance. And so part of that planning is to understand the implications for our rates. So we see the needed projects, but we also see, you know, the revenues that are coming in. And so we understand the rate of tolerance of the community.
And when we have access to drinking water SRFs and we can build that into our planning process, we're able to do more projects, because we have access to those funds. Thanks.
Speaker 4
I just have a few seconds. But, miss Merlee, we talked about the level of funding from the Jobs Infrastructure Act, Jobs Funds, unprecedented. Is OIG considered the drinking water state revolving loan fund as a low risk of fraud or high risk of fraud? Have you looked at that?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. We have our work in recent years has highlighted, I think, what is a growing risk in that area and the need for more oversight. I point you to our recent report on unknown and improper payments in the SRFs, in the annual reviews of those funds. And we're currently in the process of having those conversations on the corrective actions to be had with the agency, and one of our recommendations is for the agency to consider the risk level that the agency applies to those programs.
Speaker 11
The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes a gentleman in California, Mr. Peters, for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 12
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our witnesses, for being with us today. It is critical that we modernize this country's water infrastructure. Our water systems are old and decaying as you've explained. Many of them still struggle with replacing old service lines that contain toxic metals like lead and copper.
Deteriorating infrastructure contributes to leaks that result in wasted drinking water or, worse, the infiltration of toxic chemicals and sewage into the water system. These issues hit close to home for me and for my district in San Diego. And in most of the West, we've grappled with how to provide the water our communities need, while dealing with frequent droughts and outdated infrastructure. This week, I will reintroduce my drought act, which would help water utilities upgrade their infrastructure under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act or WIFIA for projects located in drought-afflicted areas, regionally and nationally significant projects, and projects located in low-income communities. And to be eligible for WIFIA loans, the total federal assistance for a project cannot, today, exceed more than 80% of our project's eligible costs.
This federal share cap makes it more difficult for state and local governments, especially smaller, more rural ones, to finance and complete water infrastructure projects. Raising the share cap for eligible projects is a common-sense approach that would provide flexibility and more financing options for critical water infrastructure modernization projects. Miss Recton, how can the federal share cap for projects financed under WIFIA make it more difficult for water utilities to finance and complete the infrastructure upgrades they need these days?
Speaker 9
Thank you for your question. Northern Kentucky Water District has not had the opportunity to apply for any WIFIA program, so I can't speak to that. But I can absolutely take that question and provide a response to you after.
Speaker 12
Okay. Does anyone else wanna respond to that from the perspective of the water systems, mister Olson?
Speaker 7
Yes. Thank you for the question. We certainly support expanding WIFIA and putting more money into WIFIA. We think it certainly had a major success. I'm happy to take a look at your legislation and get you a reaction.
Certainly, there's an urgent need for all hands on deck to address our water infrastructure crisis. And with you, I think we'll play an important role in that.
Speaker 12
Mister Hill, would the National Rural Water Association's members benefit from an elevated federal share cap?
Speaker 8
I'll support anything that benefits our members. I can promise you that. Comes from a small community, but yes.
Speaker 12
I'd love to work with you on this. I think this would help modernize the country's aging infrastructure, provide some support for locals from the federal government, and make our systems more efficient, resilient, cleaner, and safer. And, thank you again for being here. I yield back.
Speaker 11
Gentleman Yields, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Lada, for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 13
Well, thank you very much, and thanks to our witnesses for being with us today. And, I got a lot of questions, so we could keep the answers short. My background years ago, I was a county commissioner in Ohio, and one of our many portfolios that we have is water and sewer. So I was intimately aware of what goes on out there and what you do. And so if I could start, mister Hob, I go around my district all the time.
I'm in a lot of the water treatment plants. The number one issue we're hearing out there today is what happens when our operators are retiring and we don't have that certification. And I know you said you had a situation where you had somebody to be able to step in, but a lot of places, they're getting concerned because they don't have these people. And so the question really comes down to, does Washington understand what you all go through? And that if you don't have the people, how do you operate a system?
Speaker 8
That's a great question. We're working day in, day out, with Department of Labor. We have some apprenticeship programs national does that we're trying to get some more support from, but we have technical assistance and training in all 50 states. EPA has that technical assistance. And these systems in Alabama, they trust the Alabama Rural Water Association's technical assistance provider.
That guy's an expert. He provides free training to those operators, and we provide board member training. And we try to have it within one hour of every system, because some towns have one operator. They cannot leave. We try to have it at those systems that actually can't leave if they have availability for us to have something there.
But, they're required twenty-four hours for a single certificate and fifteen for each of their dual every three years. That's a lot of continuing education hours, but I think we can do better. But there's technical assistance now in place, but I would love to see more funding, well for the state.
Speaker 13
Because it also comes down to you. We can't force people to do a job. We got to make sure we get these people out there and trained, because as they retire, we can't just say, you know, these people are gonna do this. What about, you know, the question of contractors? You know, the question is about how much forecast should be done, and then the other part is on the supply chain.
Do we have enough for the supply chain out there that once you find the contracts to do the work, can they even have the, you know, material out there to get to meet the standards we have to have? And nobody's against any of the clean water and making sure this is there, but the problem is providing it.
Speaker 8
I'll give you one example of a contractor. The EPA, we had that situation hostage in Hodges. We had an operator there within an hour. I looked back and went to the EPA technical assistance site, and you fill out a form about this long. You send an email, and they'll respond to you within 3 days.
And they try to pair you with a technical assistance provider, and we're boots on the ground with these associations. I don't think anybody spends those funds better than these state associations to assist and have a personal relationship with each one of these systems.
Speaker 13
Well, thank you. Miss Reckon, let me ask if I may, turn to you. You know, we're talking about issues out there that, again, affect people. But especially when you're talking, you said you're talking about the sound science-based regulatory development based on sound science and will present opportunities for public health improvements. Otherwise, establishing drinking water stands without regard to the cost will cause water systems to divert scarce resources, and will lead to higher water rates for customers across the country.
I'm going to ask you a quite same question. Does Washington understand what you do and what the impact that you have in people out there? Because if all of a sudden you increase costs out there, how do people, number one, pay for it in an area that are living there? But how do you get new development to come in if all of a sudden they say, we can't afford the rights?
Speaker 9
Thank you for your question. Yes. So as a water district, we don't have, you know, any investors or anyone. We just have the rate base. So any additional costs are borne by the community members.
So we do have to absolutely remain mindful of spending their money like our own, to understand what projects are critical, how do we prioritize these projects to make sure that we're being as efficient as possible.
Speaker 13
Okay. Real just real briefly, because when you're talking about prioritizing those projects out there and those that are critical, but if you're always dealing with quote, quote, unquote, safe drinking water and making sure you're meeting those federal standards, isn't that kind of tough to do? Maybe you have to prioritize those?
Speaker 9
That's a great question. So, we went through a strategic planning process to address just that, where we recognized, you know, not only just our aging infrastructure, our water mains, our treatment plants, workforce, personnel, but then we saw the regulatory compliance side. And so during that strategic planning process, as we were fleshing out how to prioritize projects, we looked at regulatory compliance as, you know, top of mind. And so things like the lead and copper roll improvements, PFAS treatment, we wanted to make sure to allocate the right amount of dollars, advocate for the right amount of dollars, apply for those so that we can remain compliant, but also not lose sight of all of the other work that we have to complete.
Speaker 13
Well, thank you very much, mister chair. My time has expired and I yield back.
Speaker 11
The gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, doctor Ruez, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The drinking water costs are rising, and it's adding to the American affordability crisis. Since January 2025, local water agencies in the region have continued approving or proposing rate increases to cover rising operational costs and much needed and deferred maintenance. There are a lot of reports that a lot of the infrastructure needs upgrades for more efficient water storage and use for their capacity. Water affordability is increasingly a concern for many consumers.
In its 2024 report to Congress, the EPA estimated that between 12.1 million and 19.2 million households nationwide lack affordable access to water services, with annual assistance needs ranging from $5,100,000,000 to $8,800,000,000. These increases reflect the rising costs of treatment and infrastructure that communities are bearing, underscoring the urgent need for strong federal investment to help utility companies comply with strong protective standards. We need clean, safe, and affordable drinking water for every American in our nation. Water is a common good, and one can describe it as also a right to have access to water, just like the air that we breathe, and we want it to be clean and safe. Mister Olson, what measures can the federal government implement to ensure these systems can maintain affordable rates while still meeting safe drinking water standards?
Speaker 7
Well, thank you for that important question. There are basically three things that we recommend. One is certainly expanding and continuing the federal investment in water infrastructure that relieves some of the cost, as you've heard from some of the other witnesses today. The second thing is a low-income household water affordability program, and that would be investments really to help lower-income people. Much like LIHEAP is for energy, this would be for water.
Congress did adopt one temporarily during the COVID crisis, but we need a permanent low-income household water affordability program. And the third thing we recommend is technical assistance to water utilities to help them with their water rate structures and other affordability programs. So some cities, for example, Philadelphia, have adopted programs where they have basically an income-based water rate for low-income people. And if you structure your water rate right, you actually have tools that have been identified that the utility can actually save money by doing this because they're not having to ding people constantly and ask people to pay for water they can't afford.
Speaker 14
Thank you. You know, the rate increase is already taking effect for California Water Company customers in January 2026, making it clear that water bills will continue to rise. This reality is reflected in multiple scenarios in my district. I mean, for one, I just left my office with Valley Sanitation District that treats water and manages water for the city of Indio and other areas. And so they're coming up to 100 years in existence, and they have to upgrade some of their infrastructure.
And they also want to develop a biosolid to fertilizer process to help our local ag industry as well, which is a good source of revenue to add to an innovative way to increase the funding for their infrastructure development. We have the Banning Flume who is a community near the Banning area in my district that had some damage to their water systems because of natural disasters and fires, and the flooding that recently occurred. And so their water system, the lack of water devastated their orchards, their livelihoods, and many people have left out. It seems like a ghost town right now. So, how, this question is for you, Miss Rexion.
What do water systems need to better conserve water and protect critical infrastructure from environmental threats like wildfires and tropical storms?
Speaker 9
Thank you for your question. So, specifically, Northern Kentucky Water District, we are very fortunate to be in a very water-rich location. So we have access to the Ohio River and the Licking River. So water shortage issues don't specifically affect my system. But certainly, polluters impact the Ohio River.
So I would say, you know, we need to hold polluters accountable, make sure that we have access to funds for any regulations that do come down the pipeline to treat for those chemicals. So just making sure we have the funding necessary to moderate this.
Speaker 11
The gentleman yields that you're now recognized as a gentleman from Virginia. Representative gets, excuse me, Griffin for five minutes of questions.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate it. Witnesses, I am going to reference a Roanoke Times article from 08/29/22. In the article, it talks about the Western Virginia Water Authority's Spring Hollow Reservoir. The reservoir is located in the 9th Congressional District, which I represent, but it also serves sections of the 6th Congressional District represented by Ben Klein as well.
In the talk, it says, last year is a part and this is number 2022. So in 2021, last year, is a part of a statewide study by the Virginia Department of Health. Tests at Spring Hollow found hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid at levels of 51 and 57 parts per trillion. In June, well after the water authority learned of the tests, the environment that would be in 2022. In June 2022, well, after the water authority learned of the test, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new health advisory for levels of this Gen X substance to anything above 10 parts per trillion.
The amount of Gen X in Spring Hollow was the highest concentration of a forever chemical found in 45 public water sources that were part of the statewide tests, according to a 2021 Department of Health report to the general assembly. Alright. So question number one to Mister Hill and Miss Recton. Do you believe that a water system should be liable for cleanup when the source of the PFAS can be traced to a point of discharge?
Speaker 8
We should share no liability. We think we are passive receivers, and we should be exempt from Circle. And we believe the polluters should pay.
Speaker 10
Alright. Now I'm gonna switch to Miss Murley. So here's what happened. They get the 51 and 57 parts per tree in its Spring Hollow Reservoir in Roanoke County in 2021, but EPA comes out in 2022 and says you shouldn't have more than 10. Is the 10 a reasonable number, or was EPA overreacting?
Why didn't that number come out sooner if it's, I mean, they're at fifty-one and fifty-seven, and they don't notify the consumers because they don't have anything that indicates at that point in time in Roanoke County, and it serves some other counties too. But if they don't have anything at that time that tells them that the 51 and 57 are a problem.
Speaker 5
Alright. Thank you for the question. I think that's a question better directed to the agency. Alright. But I'm happy to take it back.
Speaker 10
If you would, I would appreciate it because I'm curious about it, because it raises the question, mister Hill and miss Recton, is that should the Western Virginia Water Authority located in Roanoke County and Spring Hollow, should they have known that 51 and 57 were a problem and notified their consumers earlier. Mister Hill, you wanna start, you want Miss Reckon to take that one first?
Speaker 8
I think at the minute they knew about it, they should have reached out publicly and got ahead of that.
Speaker 10
Even if it was, even if it wasn't at the time, considered a hazard or by any advice from the EPA?
Speaker 8
Well, I would if it's not considered a hazard, that is a different situation, that's a tough position to be in. I think you consult with numerous people with some advice and go from there. That's a tough question.
Speaker 10
Alright. So, miss Recton, I'll give you the next tough question because I'm asking because I wanna know the answers. So, because of the delay, does that put some liability back on the water system if they knew or should have known? And I'm not saying they should have known that there was a health concern. Does that put some liability back on the water system in an attempt to protect their consumers?
Speaker 9
What I can say is that drinking water utilities do not manufacture any chemicals. The utility is trying to protect the community by removing it from their drinking water supply. So, as passive receivers, they shouldn't, you know, there should be no liability.
Speaker 10
And, ultimately, the Western Virginia Water Authority would reach a $1,900,000 settlement with the companies. And, apparently, what happened was that a company was giving tanks to another company to be cleaned out upstream and didn't warn the secondary company that there was a PFAS inside the tanks or that might have been inside the tanks, so no precautions were taken. Since then, they've done all kinds of things. The lower limits have been lowered. I don't wanna scare the folks in the Western Virginia Water Authority region that there's a problem today, but they're still having to do measures to remove any residents or remnant amounts of the PFAS from the water there.
And that's the concern that I have along with lots. I mean, I have areas that don't have safe drinking water to begin with, much less a system that's been contaminated by PFAS. But I appreciate all of y'all being here. This is a very important subject. And if you could, from the EPA standpoint, give me an answer, because I'm just curious. And curious minds want to know.
Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, mister Palom, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions, you know, all relate to concern over lead service lines and the need to replace them, and cleaning up PFAS contamination in water. Obviously, these things can be costly. So let me start with Miss Recklin. What kind of industries rely on the water provided by your water utility?
Speaker 9
We serve all types of industries. We have hospitals, schools, daycares. Northern Kentucky is a very suburban metropolitan area.
Speaker 3
And, you know, again, I'm going back to these toxins and other things that might get into the system. Would you agree that sustained federal investment is critical to helping water systems like yours address public health challenges, you know, such as PFAS and lead?
Speaker 9
Yes. We do treat with granular activated carbon. So, you know, any funds that are available to help us with, not only those capital costs, you know, we also have operating costs that are implicated. So any funding is, yes, very beneficial.
Speaker 3
Alright. And that, you know, this is the reason that I fought hard for the investments in the bipartisan infrastructure law to the state revolving one as well as targeting funding to address lead and PFAS contamination, because that's a way to protect communities from dangerous toxins and making sure that the water systems have the funding. But, again, while funding is key, we need a regulatory framework. So it's also essential to have a good regulatory framework. So let me go to Mr. Olson.
Why is it important to have strong, enforceable drinking water standards in your opinion?
Speaker 7
Well, what we've seen is that unless you have national standards in some locations, the water systems simply do not remove some of the contaminants that are a real health concern. And we've seen this repeatedly. I mean, for PFAS, for example, and for lead, there's been, you know, fighting over those. I've been part of those fights for, in some cases, 30, 40 years where the water systems, in some cases, have fought off replacing their lead pipes or addressing some of these problems. So I think having a baseline set of federal protective standards will protect public health across the country.
Speaker 3
Yeah. And, I mean, right now, we see water utilities suing the EPA over these Biden era standards that protect communities from toxic lead and harmful PFAS. And, of course, they just say in these lawsuits that one justification is the cost. Right? So let me just say the issue again.
Based on your experience, can we have both protective drinking water standards and affordable water? And, others, kind of permanent water assistance program, which myself and I believe that our ranking member, mister Tonko, has actually introduced it. Can we have a permanent water assistance program to ensure that we have both safe and affordable water? Is that important in your opinion?
Speaker 7
It's absolutely crucial that we have both. Nobody wants to be drinking water that's threatening their health or their children's health. On the other hand, some low-income people definitely are having issues already with water affordability. So the two must go hand in hand. We need the federal funding to address some of the infrastructure issues and a low-income household water assistance program.
We strongly support both of those, but we can't be trading off bad water in order to make our water affordable. It's just nobody wants that water. As I mentioned in my testimony, 80% of the public is already concerned about their tap water, and having the country switch over to bottled water is not the solution. We really have to have safe and affordable water coming out of people's taps.
Speaker 3
Well, I agree with you, and I don't really have anything to add to what you said because I totally agree with what you said. So, thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Doctor Joyce, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chairman Palmer and Ranking Member Tonko, for holding this important hearing, and to our panel for being here to testify. This hearing is especially timely as we continue to deal with the aftermath of the sewer line failure right here in Washington, DC, that emptied millions of gallons of raw sewage into the Potomac River. In my role as the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, I joined environment subcommittee chairman Palmer as well as chairman Guthrie in sending a letter to the DC water, investigating how this failure occurred and how it will be remediated. While I look forward to receiving answers to those questions, today, I would like to focus on what a failure like this one we are seeing here in Washington reveals about our water infrastructure. All over our country, aging sewer and drinking water systems need those critical repairs.
They need those critical upgrades. If these projects are not completed efficiently, we will risk future public health and clean water disasters across our entire country. This risk is especially urgent in rural communities with smaller water systems. Often, rural communities rely on small teams with limited resources to run both the sewer and the clean water facilities. A disruption in either can put a strain on both systems, and place extreme burdens on operators and the communities that they serve.
For these communities, federal support, like what is provided by the state revolving funds, represents a much-needed lifeline, allowing rural Americans to receive uninterrupted drinking and wastewater services in under-resourced areas. Miss Murley, in your testimony, you discussed confusing and sometimes conflicting guidance provided by the EPA to states regarding how to use state revolving funds in a way that is consistent with relevant program requirements. How does this unclear guidance prevent states from efficiently and effectively dispersing funds to communities seeking to complete eligible projects?
Speaker 5
Well, thank you for the question. I'll point you to one example we have would be the Bala report that we have, which had guidance that we found, we published an evaluation summarizing SRF program administrators' perspectives on capacity to manage DWRS funding. And they reported obstacles in understanding the guidance. And then we followed up with a report looking at the different guidance in that area. And so what we found is when, you know, states and localities are trying to implement new guidance, it can be difficult to implement new programs or requirements.
If the guidance is not clear, it can hinder their ability to either apply for a program, complete the program, or be in compliance. I would also point you to an audit that we did on emerging contaminants and how to rank non PFAS contaminants in water for funding. That led to confusion among, not only, the regions administrating it, but the people who were the cities and localities that needed to comply with those requirements.
Speaker 15
And that confusion really affects compliance when it comes down to it. Correct?
Speaker 15
And with complicated regulations, especially as it relates to the cost of that compliance for communities that will ultimately receive and utilize these funds, how can they deal with that? How do they approach that when they don't know that they're clear-cut compliance from unclear obligations?
Speaker 5
I think that points to why our oversight work is so important because when we have these findings and we present them to the EPA and they issue corrective actions that enhance their guidance, I think it allows for the programs to function better.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Mister Hill, you discuss in your testimony that most rural utilities who would benefit from this federal funding don't have the resources that are necessary to hire full-time compliance staff that many large operators afford. With that dynamic, can you explain how regulatory uncertainty affects the small system's ability to engage in long-term planning?
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Small systems, one guy is doing four or five multiple tasks. Doesn't have the manpower. They reach out to our state associations for compliance and for technical assistance, and they get involved and try to structure the best plan and find them a way to navigate that.
But infrastructure, as you know, is failing, and those funds are critical, and they're crucial. But we have people in place with these state associates that will do their best to help these small associations, these small communities navigate that process.
Speaker 15
Thank you. As those living around the Potomac River here in Washington are made very aware, these risks are not theoretical, and they're not far off. They're right here in Washington, DC, and it's critical that we act now to ensure the projects can be funded and completed efficiently, and I look forward to working with this committee to find that best path forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. This chair now recognized gentleman from Florida, mister Soto, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 16
Thank you, chairman. Clean water is fundamental for every American. It's a core government duty. This is why many of us came together to vote for $50,000,000,000 for the state revolving funds and for water infrastructure under the infrastructure law under President Biden. I appreciate the interest in clean water, especially now that it's affecting a few democratic areas.
It didn't seem to bother anybody when it was affecting Republican areas. It's kind of ironic, in a way. But I appreciate the renewed attention today. You know, the investment in clean water protects families, and it also helps stop or reduce the need to raise rates. In Florida, we saw the most lead pipes of any state, which shocks a lot of people because we have a lot of new growth.
And, that's why my state was granted $275,000,000 more than any other state to help address this. We're the twentieth largest metro area in Orlando now, fast-growing. And so I appreciate both of these funds. And then I know representative Peters mentioned the WIFIA funds, those loans that are absolutely critical from EPA. We saw help with Orlando's Iron Bridge regional water reclamation facility recently, with these revolving funds.
And then, Saint Cloud, we had some issues with brown water there for a while. And recently, we've gotten to work with EPA for over 300,000,000 for Pope County for the water initiative there, 300,000,000 for Toho Water in my home county of Osceola, or 200,000,000 for Orange County. So it's not only just the state revolving fund, it's also these loans, and then the Water Research Development Act. All these are critical. And, you know, I've heard a lot from our water utilities today about the inability to fund it, and I am very empathetic to that.
Right? This is why the congress needs to step up to get you all the money, especially in a lot of these smaller towns and areas. But we've seen the current EPA undermine a lot of these historic efforts, eliminating PFAS, drinking water protections, eliminating pesticide protections, requesting 40% cuts, which we blocked here in Congress, including 1,000,000,000 less for the state revolving fund, the subject of this committee. And Congress has pushed back also on a lot of these other cuts. And we also see a climate change engagement finding that's been pulled back by the EPA just in the last few months.
Rising seas are one of the biggest issues that are threatening water systems and sewer systems in Florida, especially near the coasts. Saltwater intrusion, rising water tables that wreak havoc on the gravity systems throughout Florida. Mister Olson, how much are rising seas costing water systems across America?
Speaker 7
Thank you for the question. We see saltwater intrusion, obviously, in your district in Florida, we've, mister Carter's district in New Orleans where there was a saltwater wedge going up the Mississippi contaminating a lot of water systems. As that saltwater gets into both groundwater and into surface waters, you start to see contamination, and it can exacerbate things like lead. That saltwater, it doesn't take a lot to create toxic disinfection byproducts.
Speaker 16
Through the gravity part of it. You know, if you have a rising water table, how does that wreak havoc on systems?
Speaker 7
Yeah. It's a significant issue in a lot of coastal areas because as the water table rises and as you see more saltwater, they are going to have to spend a lot of money to treat that water. It can actually require reverse osmosis in some cases.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Deputy Inspector General Murley, how do you respond to these concerns about climate change? They're literally endangering clean water in Florida. What do you think the role should be for you as inspector general, as this endangerment finding has been removed?
Speaker 5
So, thank you for the question. As an independent nonpartisan office, we would not assess or opine on the merits of the policy itself. But if we did work, it would focus on whether the agency complied with laws, regulations, or procedures, and internal controls in making and implementing that decision.
Speaker 16
So you wouldn't make a determination whether EPA is doing something contrary to their mission or something that potentially could be corrupt?
Speaker 5
What we would look at is whether the agency had followed its own process and its internal procedures. And I'll point you, for example, when we reviewed the EPA's 2009 entity.
Speaker 16
Thank you so much, Inspector General. I would think at a water hearing, we'd have an EPA person who actually could respond to this. I recognize your limitations, but you're still the an inspector general who's supposed to be reviewing a lot of these endangerment findings. And, you know, mister chairman, I would hope we could get someone in here who could talk about this eventually, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Chair now recognizes this gentleman from Louisiana, Mister Carter, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I represent Southeast Louisiana, where we know firsthand how water infrastructure is a literal lifeline to communities. We need robust federal investments in our water systems to meet the estimated $625,000,000,000 in water infrastructure improvements needed over the next 20 years to ensure the health and safety of Americans. Climate change is putting additional pressure on our drinking water systems through extreme weather events.
The New Orleans area now regularly faces threats of saltwater intrusion into its drinking water supply due to high sea level rise, Midwest drought, which reduce river flow and allow saltwater to move up the Mississippi near the water intake system. Had saltwater reached the intake system, it would have potentially cut off safe drinking water for hundreds of thousands of Louisiana residents, forcing expensive emergency measures and threatening public health, agriculture, ecosystems across the region. This is not hyperbole. This is real. We know this to be a fact.
In a rapidly changing world, congress needs to be a proactive partner with drinking water systems to build resilience to twenty first century threats. Mister Olson, how are the impacts of climate change, drought, winter storms, hurricane, heat waves impacting the operations of water utilities, and how are these impacts increasing costs for utility and ratepayers?
Speaker 7
Thank you. It's a very important issue. As you mentioned, the saltwater wedge that was going up the Mississippi was a huge problem. Downstream of New Orleans, there was contamination in some of those smaller water systems that got contaminated by saltwater. It really created significant issues.
And it's not just those kinds of issues we're seeing because of the drought. A lot of western utilities are having problems having adequate water. We're seeing wildfires that are spreading, and most people don't think of this, but wildfires can pose a real risk to drinking water supplies. Water supplies, what we've seen in the campfire, for example, and several others, is plastic pipes got melted, and then contaminated water got sucked into the distribution system with benzene and other contamination in some cases, contaminating entire water systems. So we see climate change definitely an increasing threat spreading across the country and, frankly, globally.
So unless we have meaningful changes that ensure that we're addressing those extreme weather events.
Speaker 17
And the retreat from the denial that climate change is real. There are still those who are in very powerful places who suggest that climate change is a hoax. This thought in vitriol is dangerous to the American people. As you noted in your testimony, cyber threats also pose a risk to our nation's infrastructure. What tools and resources should Congress provide to EPA and water systems to handle these threats?
Speaker 7
Cyberattacks are what you're asking about. The it's a significant challenge because, as you've actually heard from Mr. Hill and others, we definitely have issues. A lot of small systems in particular don't have the resources to address this, and it's something EPA had actually issued a guidance document that would have required states to address cybersecurity as part of the, what they're called, sanitary surveys, and that was challenged by the industry. We think we need a national solution to the cybersecurity issue. We've seen repeated cyberattacks already on water utilities, some of them having to shut down their billing systems.
And as I mentioned in my testimony, examples of remote attacks on those water systems to actually affect their status.
Speaker 17
Thank you. Miss Markley, you were asked a moment ago questions about your role as inspector general. Can you, in just ten seconds, tell me what your job as inspector general is?
Speaker 5
My job is to oversee the agency's programs and operations to make sure they're operating efficiently and effectively, and to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse.
Speaker 17
Okay. So when you identify that, do you feel that you are empowered to call out this administration if, in fact, you identify waste, fraud, abuse, or some practices that are not correct?
Speaker 5
I answered the question based on our role. In the inspector general, the IG statute, we are not a policymaking body. We don't make decisions.
Speaker 17
His question was relative to a policy. Was relative to an action. So a part of us and oversight at asking you questions, particularly given the title that you enjoy, is a title to ensure that you are rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, that you are not looking through the prism of a Republican or a Democrat, not answering to any particular president or even EPA administrator, but just to the facts. My time is far exposed. I will resend more to you in writing.
I yield. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Chair, I now recognize this gentlelady from North Dakota, Miss Fridurchick, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses for sharing your expertise and your passion for these issues with us today. Super important legislation we're talking about today, and the regulatory structure for safe drinking water, something that every American cares about. Every elected leader, regardless of your party, cares a lot about safe drinking water and making sure we have the correct processes in place to protect and provide that to Americans. Mister Hill, I wanted to start with you. You testified that 91% of community water systems serve 10,000 or fewer people, yet they face the same federal mandates as the largest utilities.
I represent the entire state of North Dakota. Lots of communities. Most of our communities are under 10,000. So we can definitely relate to this. From your perspective, as a small system operator, how should Congress adjust state revolving fund implementation or regulatory timelines to better account for limited staffing and administrative capacity without compromising public health?
Speaker 8
I think the process needs to be expedited, and that starts with the application process. We've gotta get that money in the hands of those utilities because I've got a $1,000,000 clean water and $1,000,000 drinking water project. And by the time it gets to me, those contractors are walking right by me going to a 10 or $20,000,000 project. So I see it when I go to a bid opening, and there's one to two people that ten years ago we had 10 contractors. So that lag time has caused prices to increase.
One of our neighboring systems just received 845,000. They had one contractor to be in, and that project was 1,400,000. And that puts a burden on the system actually when because it's taken four years to go from application to you receiving those funds, and that is we've gotta expedite that process and get those out. And whatever we can do to get those funds out to those small utilities, we need to address those concerns.
Speaker 18
Great. Thank you for that. And you outlined specific barriers that small systems face accessing the IJA and SRF funds, particularly BABA, Davis Bacon, and application complexity. If Congress were to prioritize just one or two targeted reforms to ensure that rural communities can fully use these funds, what would it be?
Speaker 8
The Davis Bacon, it takes a lot of time to go on site. You have to categorize those employees by the job they do. There's a lot of paperwork to do that. And when you drag that process out even longer, instead of a week or two week process, it takes two or three months. That's an issue.
I support BABA 100%, especially on cybersecurity. But sometimes, you have pumps or motors and things you can't get. The way that plant was designed thirty years ago, you need to order something and drop it back in place. Sometimes you have to go outside of that and get something that doesn't fall under BABA. But the cybersecurity, I agree, is 100% should be BABA compliant.
Speaker 18
Okay. Very good. Thank you for that. Miss Murley, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to consider cost-benefit analysis when regulating contaminants. Based on your office's oversight work, how effectively is EPA balancing health protections with affordability, particularly for small communities like those I represent in North Dakota?
Speaker 5
Thank you. We have not conducted work in this area, though we are aware of, at times, the prohibitive cost to recalibrate systems to address different contaminants. And we'd be happy to meet with your staff and talk about concerns that you have in any work that we may do in the area.
Speaker 18
Okay. Is it something that you can do more of, or why have you not pursued that work in the past?
Speaker 18
Okay. Thank you. I have one more minute. Miss Recton, your testimony cites EPA's estimate of 625,000,000,000 in drinking water investment needs over twenty years. Some others have testified to it being almost a trillion dollars, or more.
In your view, is the current SRF we WIFIA structure sufficient to close that gap, or does Congress need to rethink the federal financing model?
Speaker 9
Thank you for your question. I would say that the Northern Kentucky Water District has enjoyed several drinking water SRFs. Over the past 20 years, we've been able to benefit from 17 of those, totaling $110,000,000. So our historical access to those funds has been instrumental in how we've been able to invest in our system. And I would say moving forward, it's equally as critical for the stability and predictability of how we can plan our projects.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Manades, for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 19
Thank you, chairman. Here's something I know we all agree on. No American should be poisoned by the water they drink or pay for the lead contamination. There is no safe level of lead exposure. In New Jersey alone, at least 115,000 lead pipes in millions across our country still need to be replaced to prevent developmental delays, brain damage, nerve disorders, and other potentially lifelong health consequences.
Our state and nation have made meaningful progress toward eliminating lead pipes, but there is still significant work left to do. That is why lead pipe replacement must remain a priority as we consider updates to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The city of New York, which I am proud to represent alongside my colleague, congresswoman Lamonica MacGyver, has set a powerful example of efficient, comprehensive lead pipe replacement. After elevated levels of lead in drinking water affected an estimated 200,000 Newark residents, the city replaced 23,000 lead service lines in under three years, protecting the health of the children and families who call Newark home. Mister Olson, how is Newark's lead pipe replacement program served as a model for other communities in New Jersey and around the country?
Speaker 7
Well, thank you for that question. Newark has turned out to be a real model. We've been deeply engaged in Newark, and the city has replaced, as you mentioned, over 20,000 lead service lines in about two and a half years. Among the other things that they did, they adopted a very important ordinance that we have recommended many other cities adopt that makes it easier for them to implement this. They've gone in, and they've paid for 100% of the lead service lines replacement.
What we've seen in other cities, including here in Washington DC for a while, when the water utility doesn't pay for 100% of the lead service lines, a lot of people, especially low income people, say they can't afford it, and, therefore, the lead service line doesn't get replaced. So a 100% payment is also key. And they had very important, well.
Speaker 19
Thank you. I appreciate that. And I believe their work demonstrates that every household and every income can and should have access to affordable, safe drinking water. But we must provide communities with the resources they need to make this principle a reality. In 2024, New Jersey received $123,000,000 for lead pipe replacement under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, part of the law's $15,000,000,000 total investment in reducing lead and drinking water.
I'll start with you, Mister Olson, then we're gonna go down this way. Just yes or no. Would you agree that communities and utilities still need additional federal resources to continue this important work? Yes.
Speaker 19
And would you agree that we must maintain a dedicated funding source for lead service line replacement? Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you.
And as we consider where and how these resources are directed, we must remember that children are often exposed to lead while at school or in childcare. While the EPA has made important progress in protecting students, lead contamination remains a challenge in many districts, and a concern for many parents. Mister Olson, briefly, how can Congress continue to support schools and childcare centers seeking to protect students and reduce lead exposure?
Speaker 7
We would strongly support some tweaks in the current program to address schools and child care centers for lead, to install filters that will address the problem.
Speaker 19
I appreciate that. And to fully protect the health of children and families, and effectively direct federal resources, we also need to know how many lead pipes need replacement and achieve an accurate national lead pipe inventory. Last year, the Trump administration's EPA revised its estimate of the number of lead pipes nationwide, lowering it from 9 million to 4 million, a reduction with significant implications for the appropriation and allocation of funds to address lead in drinking water. Mister Olson, do you have concerns that the Trump administration underestimated the number of lead service lines in our country? Yes or no?
Speaker 19
Just briefly, are the potential public health consequences of undercounting that figure?
Speaker 7
Well, we're concerned that less funding will be made available to locations that really need it, as a result of the reduced estimate.
Speaker 19
Thank you so much. And just quickly, acting inspector general Murley. Responding to questions for the record from the last hearing he appeared at before Trump illegally fired him, your predecessor said that long standing budget and staffing shortfalls, quote, significantly constrained our independence and equated to less oversight of EPA. Yes or no? Do you share your predecessor's view that staff losses such as those the OIG experienced last year erode your office's independence and its ability to conduct oversight of the EPA?
That's just a yes-or-no question.
Speaker 19
But if you need to hire, they need to increase your capacity, which means that you currently have an issue, and you're not able to do the full job the way it was anticipated and envisioned.
Speaker 19
I would agree with that. Well, thank you all so much for being here. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields, the chair now recognizes this gentleman from Georgia, Mister Carter, for five minutes for his question.
Speaker 11
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you all for being here. This is a fascinating hearing for me. I'm a former mayor. I was a mayor in another life, and I tell people all the time, when I was in pharmacy school, I never imagined I'd know as much about water and sewer as I know after having been a mayor. But you have to know.
And I will tell you, most people, they go to the restroom, and they turn on the water, and it flows. And they flush it and go away, and that's all they know. But when you're mayor and you're on city council, you gotta know where it's coming from, where it's going, and how it's being treated. So I appreciate what you do, all of you. We all know that a big concern is cybersecurity.
We all know that a big concern is making sure that we don't have anything go wrong with our water systems, and it will be used as a tool in future conflicts. We all know that. In 2002, congress mandated that community water systems conduct vulnerability assessments and prepare response plans for their facilities to guard against terrorist attacks or other intentional acts. Congress authorized technical assistance and grants to assist community water systems in 2018. These actions are essential.
They're essential for national security. We all understand that. As Miss Retchin had said in her testimony, from April 2024 through March 2025, roughly 14% of water utilities reported experiencing at least one cybersecurity incident. That's an increase, an increase of about 11.5 percent during the same period the year before. So we often know that this is gonna be a concern.
Mister Hill, I want to ask you. Utilities are increasingly asked to strengthen cybersecurity while also managing aging infrastructure, workforce shortages, and rising compliance costs. How are small systems prioritizing cyber investments relative to physical infrastructure needs, and what are some of the trade offs if there are?
Speaker 8
Was to address cybersecurity. We implemented the SCADA system, and that was probably the best thing we did at the time since some things had evolved since then, but that was top priority for us.
Speaker 11
Did you how are you dealing with aging infrastructure as a result of that?
Speaker 8
So aging infrastructure is a huge issue. We're chasing SRF loans, trying to get as much money as we can to replace the infrastructure. But, the SCADA and the cybersecurity do protect that infrastructure, but we are pursuing and trying to get all the money possible for our rural community.
Speaker 11
Miss Ratchen, tell me more about the security risks that you're seeing with border utilities and how Congress can help utilities improve cyber resilience.
Speaker 9
Thank you for your question. So I would agree with you that cyber threats are real. They're growing. As water systems increasingly rely on Internet-connected operational technologies, it brings us efficiencies, but also new vulnerabilities. And I would say Congress can just continue to support programs that improve information sharing, provide funding for cybersecurity upgrades, and help utilities adopt best practices that are scalable and also tailored to the size of their system.
Speaker 11
K. Thank you. I wanna just touch briefly on EPA's involvement in Water Cyber because they do have an involvement here. They also have an extremely important job to ensure that our drinking water is safe. Miss Murley, from an oversight perspective, where do you see gaps in EPA's current approach to drinking water cybersecurity, and what limitations affect the agency's ability to identify or mitigate cyber risk across water systems?
Speaker 5
What, thank you for the question. I think the EPA is the sector specific agency charged with ensuring that the water sector is prepared for any hazard, including cyber risk. But the agency does not set mandatory federal cybersecurity requirements. It does provide technical assistance, guidance, outreach, and education to water systems. And I turn you to our 2024 management implication report on cyber concerns, where we identified vulnerabilities across systems serving millions of Americans.
We're encouraged by the steps the agency has taken to elevate this issue, including the creation of a new office and the announcement of grants. From an oversight perspective, we just announced a project to look at the IHA funds for drinking water SRF projects, designed to strengthen the water sector systems against physical and cyber threats and hazards. One difficulty we encountered during this work during this project is that we cannot identify unless the state has included the relevant information in its intended use plan. So I would say that is an area of improvement.
Speaker 11
Okay. Just out of curiosity, real quick, have any of you experienced any cybersecurity threats in any of your systems or heard of any? Miss Ratchan?
Speaker 9
I would say we experience threats daily, but I can't speak to any other systems. So, yes, we have a very strong cyber defense.
Speaker 8
Okay. Anyone else? I know, we are involved with CISA, and then you have Water ISAC. And that's a community that they share a lot of that information back and forth, and that is a tool that a lot of water systems are using now across America to share that information and get ahead and make everyone knowledgeable of what's going on. Okay.
Gentlemen's time.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being here, and the work that you all do, in general, but in particular around keeping water safe. And I wanna talk first about the EPA's Office of Research and Development. So I'm from Cincinnati. We have a big, you know, EPA office.
We have a big office of research and development, and this is key for safe drinking water in the sense that people, municipalities, from all over the country send information our way, our folks test it, determine, you know, what's in the water, how to get there, what are the interventions, so on and so forth. And it makes a huge difference in helping, you know, municipalities, folks all over the country clean up their water, if there is an issue. And so, there has been some issues with the office of research and development, some attacks on those jobs, maybe moving them into the secretary's office, so that they would be more political. All kinds of things are spinning around. And I just would like to know first, mister Olson, so that, you know, those who aren't familiar with the office of research and development, can you talk a little bit about their role in keeping water safe?
Speaker 7
Well, the office of research and development has been critical to studying some of the health effects of these contaminants, including PFAS. The Cincinnati lab has been crucial to studying, for example, how lead corrodes pipes and how to address the problem. They've also developed a lot of the test methods that are used for PFAS and for other contaminants. So they've been absolutely central to protecting our health. And, unfortunately, by eliminating the office research and development and shifting resources and putting some of those people out of work, we're very concerned about the impacts of some of the changes at ORD.
Speaker 6
Yeah. I mean, they they're incredible professionals. And, you know, if we reduce the number or get rid of ORD, these municipalities aren't going to have this entity that helps them clean up water. So, Miss Merle, do you wanna talk a little bit about the EPA's plan here or anything that you might be looking into to ensure the independent, the ongoing work of ORD and its independence?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. We, as an office, are always concerned about scientific integrity and have raised this issue for years. It's been in our past management challenges. We are currently staying updated on changes with the agency, not just within scientific integrity, but all changes with the agency. But we've not done work related to this specific change.
And we have no concerns to share currently, but we, the OIG, have a critical role in protecting the agency's adherence to scientific integrity. And as an independent office, we receive complaints of mismanagement, misconduct, and abuse or censorship, including those related to scientific misconduct or research misconduct. I could point you to past work. We have records, reports of investigation regarding allegations of scientific interference and work. Last summer, we issued a report highlighting issues stemming from inadequate oversight in ORD.
I can provide that. And this year, one of our top management challenges for the agency that we've identified for the agency is maintaining mission efficiency and effectiveness during organizational change, and included in that would be changes to the scientific integrity process.
Speaker 6
It sounds like you're sorry. Maybe I misunderstood what you just said, but it sounds like you are less interested in protecting ORD and the research they do to protect clean water, and suggesting that there's mismanagement and issues, and thus sort of justifying or creating a context for firing people?
Speaker 5
So the records of or the reports of investigation were actually protecting scientific integrity at the agency. That's where those complaints came from. So those reports involved potential interference.
Speaker 5
I mean, we meet regularly with the agency scientific integrity program staff, and we receive information from them on a monthly basis.
Speaker 5
The staffing decisions at the agency are not a question for the office of inspector general.
Speaker 20
Gentlemen, time has expired. The chair now recognizes myself for questioning. This is such an important issue, coming from a district in West Texas where water is both scarce, and also, hampered by the overregulated nature of bureaucracy at times. And that's really what I wanna talk about, because access to safe drinking water is obviously nonnegotiable, and every community deserves that. But the way we regulate it, the way we fund it, the way we transmit it to our communities is critical as well.
And I'd argue that most water systems in our country are small, and they don't have the compliance departments or the in-house counsel that some of the big operators do. But when Washington adds new mandates, whether it's monitoring requirements, reporting layers, labor rules, or procurement standards, these requirements land on rural communities in an outsized and negative way. And that's my community that we're talking about here. And we've got to understand what this means for ratepayers because in those small communities, it also impacts the price that people are paying for water. Mister Hill, what do you think is the most important element of operating a safe public drinking water supply?
Speaker 20
Can you kind of walk us through? I think you have 26 employees that are managing both water and wastewater. How do you prioritize when new requirements come online?
Speaker 8
We'll look at the new requirements, and, of course, I chair the regulatory committee for national. So I get a little bit of insight there on, but it's hard to prepare. We do all we can preparing for these to meet the requirements for regulatory, but it's tough for a small system. The finances are not there for these new rules.
Speaker 20
So, it sounds good. Some of the ideas that come out of Washington on paper, you know, it's like, oh, great. We can support that, and that's gonna keep it safer and cleaner. But is that really the case sometimes? What do we misunderstand up here?
Speaker 8
You know, right now, we're looking at perchlorate. UCMR one was 2000, 2005, and we tested for perchlorate. We had no DTEX, and we'll be coming this week, they're looking at applying that rule. And that's not EPA. That's a court decision.
But, we've already done this round of testing 20 years ago, and here we are again going down the same path. It is a burden put back on our water system again to do something we've already addressed once before.
Speaker 20
Miss Murley, thank you for being here. Are small and rural water systems facing unique challenges in accessing federal infrastructure funds? And if so, can you go into detail about that?
Speaker 5
Yes. I would point you to a series of works that we have done on state capacity to handle the influx of IJA, both drinking water and clean water. We've looked at the state of New Mexico. We looked at South Carolina, and we looked at the US Virgin Islands. I would say that each state has different demographics and different challenges, either human capacity, technical capacity, or organizational challenges to receive those funds.
And we've done work and made recommendations to the agency for improving those areas.
Speaker 20
I have 10, 15, maybe even 20 communities that are searching for those funds right now. They're looking, you know, to see how they can help because of the issues we just described, and Mister Hill talked about. Where should I point them? Is it that report you mentioned? Are there other areas that we can highlight to them?
Speaker 5
I would point them to the agency. I think one of my colleagues testified today about an application for technical assistance, and I wouldn't think that the best area to go.
Speaker 20
Thank you for that. The scarcity issue in West Texas, a drought-prone area, that does not receive a lot of rain is a real issue. And we rely heavily on groundwater, and, you know, the population growth is also tied to that scarcity issue as well. But, mister Hill, in drought prone areas like the one that I serve, what does the long term water reliability planning look like for a small system?
Speaker 8
So we have to have a water conservation plan with Office Water Resource in Alabama and a privacy agency. So we ran into droughts in the 90s. We laid a 10-inch, HDPE line on top of the ground. We put a pump station into a larger source, and we got ahead of that problem. And we ended up putting a pump station on a reservoir, which is larger than the primary reservoir.
We ran six miles of 24-inch ductile iron pipe. And Russellville, as of today, I'm here to proudly say we should not be in another drought condition because our board had the insight and understanding of how important that water was for industry and communities to thrive.
Speaker 20
Is it easy for you in those long-term planning sessions to also comply with federal regulations? Are more regulations better for you?
Speaker 8
It is very tough to comply with the regulations because when you get one behind you, there's another one coming.
Speaker 20
Thank you. My time has expired. I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Members may have additional questions in writing for you, and I'll remind members that they have 10 days to submit those additional questions to the record. I ask that the witnesses do your best to submit responses within 10 business days of receipt of those questions.
I'd like to ask Animus consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, so ordered. And without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.